TWA FLIGHT 800

3rd party | 11/27/01 | Fred Roberts

[Non-Sequitur]

Let me throw a few more names at you:

Ted Schuman
Duane Oakes
Shawn Betas
Phillip Dunn
Jeffery Hayes
Russell Balmer
Michael Aikens

They are also on the NTSB report that you mentioned. They were also on the P-3 that was in the area. They were all interviewed by the NTSB in connection with the flight the night that TWA 800 crashed. Not surprisingly they don't mention towing any target. They don't mention any missile exercise. Barf says that the other four were transferred immediately after the crash of TWA 800 but these interviews were conducted in March 1977, almost 8 months after the crash. Why is it surprising that 4 members of the crew could have been transferred within an 8 month period? How does some time within an 8 month period qualify as 'immediate'? Why don't the interviews with the other members of the crew offer anything to support your claims of target towing or missile tests or anything other than a routine ASW exercise? Here is a link to the interview if you would like to refresh your memory.

[barf]

Were they asked if they were towing anything? Were they asked why they had the secondary radar transponder turned off? Could they have been told early on to keep their mouths shut? If not asked, they likely did not give answers.

[barf]

When were they actually xferred? Within an eight month period is weasel wording. You could say within a ten year period and still be accurate. How about a fifty year period? You have to remember that the accident happened during the Clinton administration when weasel wording was perfected to a science. The sheet which listed buoys looked like it had been cutoff at the bottom. What was removed from the listing by the cutting?

[barf]

BTW, IFF equipment has gone through a lot of changes since I had responsibliity for maintaining it. I noted that APX-72 was in the listing. Back in my day, it was APX-6 and classified SECRET.

[acehai]

While you're skating around the internet, why don't you find some evidence that the Navy has actually used towed targets for missile tests in the last couple decades.

Maybe you should break out your skates and do a little investigation. It's not hard. Just one Dogpile search brings up STI who state:

Since 1990, Spectrum Technologies has provided a wide range of towed aerial target products to customers world-wide. Today, STI is the only U.S. owned and operated manufacturer of towed aerial targets. Our targets have successfully simulated threats for weapons systems such as the Phalanx CIWS, Goalkeeper CIWS, the Mark 45 gun, and Mark 75 gun, the Standard missile, and the Sea Sparrow missile. CLICK HERE to read the whole mission statement.

Now unless Standard missiles are not US Navy assets, it appears that the US Navy employs civilian contracters to augment its own capabilities. Also, heres a nice little shot of a STI Lear 35 tow in action.

[Rokke]

Well, lets see. You offer an ad from a civilian company that uses learjets to tow target drones as proof that the U.S. Navy uses towed targets to test missiles. By conspiracy nut standards, I supposes that passes as proof. By any other standard, you have proven no such thing. Your ad says nothing about the US Navy, shows no US Navy aircraft and lists ordnance used by many different countries besides the US (the Standard missile alone is in use by at least 10 countries I can think of off the top of my head). Furthermore, the target from your ad is not the same as the TDU-34 you presented as evidence in an earlier post.

Bottomline, keep skating.

[a6intruder]

Rokke,

Hate to go against a former comerade, but he's partially correct. Flight International, the primary easy coast Lear Jet services contractor uses the STI MRT 2000 towed target for USN ships firing exercises.

However, when asked (about 10 minutes ago) they said they had never gone against a Standard missile and only a few NATO SEASPARROW. When they did, they used nearly 30, 000 feet of cable in a crossing target scenario.

Obviously, the concern is getting shot down in the tractor...

A6intruder...back into the reading and lurking mode for now.

[Non-Sequitur]

You are really grasping at straws now.

[barf]

Probably did but the shooting and the cover-up are from the same party. Most satellite assets are classified. Raw data is rarely transferred, with only written descriptions allowed to shield capability.

[barf]

I am always grasping for straws. But when looking for a specific item, the straws may show them. You have to know how to separate the specific from the general. Straws are only straws to the unsophisticated. I found the 'sled' amongst stuff that had been looked at for five years without being detected.

[timestax]

bttt

[Non-Sequitur]

I found the 'sled' amongst stuff that had been looked at for five years without being detected.

But so far you are the only one to see the sled. Maybe, just maybe, nobody else detected your 'sled' because there is, in fact, no sled to detect? And in your reply 182 maybe, just maybe, the crew didn't say that they were towing a target because, in fact, they weren't towing a target? Did those possibility ever enter into your mind?

[acehai]

Obviously, the concern is getting shot down in the tractor...

Obviously the Rep I contacted at STI felt the same way when he replied..."Missile shots are few and far between, and the pilots of the tow aircraft seem to like it that way!"

He said about 5% of their shots supported missile testing.

Thanks for the input...

[barf]

A 'standard' Standard is to be avoided but a Standard with no explosive warhead is less harmful. The guilty missile was a hybrid with dual homing and inert warhead undergoing a test. It may not have been officially classified as a KKV but was one effectively. I have been using the term KKV rather loosely. It was not a stock SM-2. Does anyone know whether or not any S-band radio transmissions were going on on 17 July 1996? Possibly ones which occurred prior to 20:31:12 Eastern Daylight Savings Time?

[barf]

Thank you for bringing this up. SOMETHING was being towed behind the P3. If not a sled, tell us what it was. Radar does not repeatedly show an object if no object exists especially behind a known object which no one is denying. Were there more than one P3 being flown in that airspace? Air Traffic Control allowed sufficient vertical separation for a sled. Why, if no sled existed? The object sagged a half mile below the towing craft. What other possibilities sag a half mile below from a tow at 20,000 feet? Magnetometers are towed a few hundred feet above the ocean. What are towed 20,000 feet above?

[Non-Sequitur]

But you are the only one who seems to think that something was being towed. I have no idea what pictures you have been looking at so I have no idea what you see. But nobody else has mentioned a towed target or offered evidence of a towed target or seen a towed target except you. Doesn't that suggest anything to you at all?

[barf]

To repeat, SOMETHING was being towed behind the P3. It shows up at 17,600 feet at the time of the crash. There are a steady row of radar returns at or near this elevation for several minutes at minimum. If not a sled, what is it. It is there for all to see. It is not imaginary. It does not have secondary radar but does reflect primary radar. The P3 does not have secondary radar as well but it shows up just above 20,000 feet. Are you going to tell me that the P3 does not exist as well? Both the P3 and the object being towed by the P3 show up on the same radar graph. They are tied together, repeatedly. I didn't prepare the graphs. Our NTSB prepared the graphs. Take your complaints to the NTSB.

[barf]

The only thing suggested to me is that the sheeple don't have eyes. I took the time to look at the data. Most people likely don't and take the word of the government. I did that too in the beginning but learned that what we were being told was garbage. The data told a different story. Our government lied to us. Plain and simple.

[Rokke]

What would the sheeple do without you? Hundreds of experts analyze mountains of data and publish the data and their conclusions for all to see, but you are the only one who figured out that the P-3 was dragging a "sled" that was obviously used by a 30 knot submarine as a target for a "KKW" missile. Brilliant analysis.